Canadian Mortgages, Insurance, Investment, Tax Planning

CRA Media Room

Revenu Québec - Tax News

XE Forex News

Canadian Mortgage Broker news

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Canadian Mortgage Broker News - GDP Declines across Canada in 2009

Canadian Mortgage Broker News - GDP Declines across Canada in 2009


GDP Declines across Canada in 2009

| Thursday, 29 April 2010



Canada's GDP declined by 2.9 per cent nationally in 2009 after an increase of 0.6 per cent in 2008 according to a Statistics Canada report.


While the economy shrank in almost every Canadian province and territory last year, the only exceptions were in Prince Edward Island and the Yukon Territory.


Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia - three of the country's four biggest provincial economies - fell by more than the national average. Quebec's shrank by a relatively modest 1.0 per cent.


The figures comes days before Statistics Canada releases its GDP numbers for February of this year and nearly two months after it reported the national economy grew in the fourth quarter of 2009 at an annual rate of 5 per cent.


The growth in the final months of 2009 did not completely offset earlier declines when Canada was feeling the impact of a global recession which resulted in driving down the demand for exports and hurt domestic confidence.

Mortgage rate as of 29/04/2010

Our commitment:
* Negociate on your behalf the best interest rates and loan conditions
* Provide you with a pre-approval service
* Explain to you the range of government programs (Home Buyers Plan, ...)
* Protect your mortgage rate for up to 120 days
* Transfer your mortgage free of charge*


Mortgage product Posted rate Our rate
     
5 years Variable 3.75 %1.75 %
5 years Var Promo PAP2.25 %1.75 %
1 year 4.50 %2.54 %
1 year open6.70 %6.45 %
2 years4.55 %3.30 %
3 years5.10 %3.85 %
4 years5.74 %4.19 %
5 years6.25 %4.54 %
6 years6.50 %5.05 %
7 years7.00 %5.00 %
9 years5.73 %5.43 %
10 years 7.35 %5.36 %
15 years9.55 %9.25 %
18 years9.55 %9.25 %
25 years9.65 %9.35 %



*Some conditions apply, subject to change without prior notice.

Posted by DataTracker Powered by CoolRent

Monday, April 26, 2010

CIBC: "The Week Ahead" - April 26th-30th - dvk.b2b2c@gmail.com - Gmail

CIBC: "The Week Ahead" - April 26th-30th


Key Highlights of this week’s article entitled: “Flying Too Close to the Sun”

The Canadian dollar has passed parity with the USD and should maintain its current level throughout the year. Factors preventing future strength in the CAD are 1) investors recent memory of the 2007 climb and subsequent reversal, 2) the drag that a high CAD has on its economy, 3) "priced in" events such as rate tightening and more stable oil prices, and 4) global fund flows cannot have too much weight in small markets.

Key Numbers to watch this week:

· Canada – Real GDP - February (Friday, 8:30AM) – All told, February's GDP report could show a mixed picture with strength in some industries cancelling out underperforming ones, resulting in a soft 0.2% monthly advance.

· US – Real GDP – Advance (Friday, 8:30AM) – After a strong Q4 (5.6%), real GDP growth should likely slow down to a 3% annualized paced for Q1. The pace of recovery should slow down significantly in the 2nd half of the year and into 2011. The Fed is in no hurry to raise rates anytime soon.

Equity Insight:

· Q1 earnings on the TSX are expected to show the strongest year-over-year growth in 7 years. Financials and materials will account for 3/4 of the increase in dollar terms, and 9 out of 10 sectors will show an increase in earnings.

· A higher Yuan may not hurt resource prices as recent history, from 2005 to 2008, shows that prices remained stable during a Yuan appreciation.

· Analysts earnings expectations for the TSX may be on the conservative side and may signal upside surprises as we head into announcements.

Currency Currents:

· BoC rate hikes are likely to be gradual as the output gap is approximately 2%. This suggests a gradual increase in rates of approx. 25 bps, starting in June. We may see a pause around December as the high CAD could help keep growth under control.

· As the UK elections creep up, the Sterling seems to be stabilized as investors wait to see the outcome of the election, and the candidates planned responses to the economic malaise.

· While Brazil left its rate unchanged in its March meeting, it is looking increasingly likely that they will hike rates soon to counter inflation.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Mortgage rate as of 23/04/2010

Our commitment:
* Negociate on your behalf the best interest rates and loan conditions
* Provide you with a pre-approval service
* Explain to you the range of government programs (Home Buyers Plan, ...)
* Protect your mortgage rate for up to 120 days
* Transfer your mortgage free of charge*


Mortgage product Posted rate Our rate
     
5 years Variable 3.75 %1.75 %
5 years Var Promo PAP2.25 %1.75 %
1 year 4.35 %2.39 %
1 year open6.55 %6.45 %
2 years4.30 %3.30 %
3 years4.85 %3.29 %
4 years5.59 %4.19 %
5 years6.10 %4.44 %
6 years6.35 %4.80 %
7 years6.85 %5.00 %
9 years5.73 %5.43 %
10 years 7.20 %5.34 %
15 years9.55 %9.25 %
18 years9.55 %9.25 %
25 years9.65 %9.35 %



*Some conditions apply, subject to change without prior notice.

Posted by DataTracker Powered by CoolRent

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Tax Filing Deadline / Date limite de production

Filing Deadline / Date limite de production


Filing Deadline
All returns transmitted electronically up until midnight (local time) on April 30, 2010, will be considered as filed on time. For records that are returned for correction, you will have until midnight (local time) on Thursday May 6, 2010 to correct and retransmit electronically. Records that are retransmitted and accepted on or before Thursday May 6, 2010, will be considered as filed on time.

If you receive a reject error clue that indicates that you should file a paper return, and you file the paper return after April 30, 2010, a late filing penalty may be assessed. You should therefore, file the paper return as soon as possible. Any enquiries requesting relief from the late-filing penalty under the Taxpayer Relief Provisions of the Income Tax Act should be directed to your local tax centre for consideration. You will also be required to send a copy of the non-accepted records list.

Clients who have self-employment income, and their spouses or common-law partners, have until midnight (local time) Tuesday June 15, 2010, to file their income tax returns.

Anyone who has a balance owing for 2009 should remember that it must be paid on or before April 30, 2010.

NOTE: If you are an Efiler acting as a transmitter on behalf of a preparer, please communicate this message to the preparer.
***********************************************************************************

Version française *** The English version precedes ***
Date limite de production
Toutes les déclarations transmises par voie électronique le 30 avril 2010 jusqu'à minuit, heure locale, seront considérées comme produites à temps. Vous aurez jusqu'à minuit heure locale jeudi le 6 mai 2010 pour corriger et retransmettre par voie électronique les enregistrements qui auront été rejetés pour fins de correction. Les enregistrements qui seront retransmis et acceptés jeudi le 6 mai 2010 ou avant cette date seront considérés comme produits à temps.

Si vous recevez un indice d'erreur vous indiquant de produire une déclaration papier et que vous la produisez après le 30 avril 2010, une pénalité pour production tardive pourrait être imposée. Vous devriez donc produire la déclaration papier le plus tôt possible. Toute demande d'allègement administratif en vertu des dispositions d'allègement pour les contribuables de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, concernant la pénalité devrait être acheminée à votre centre fiscal pour fins de revue et devrait être accompagnée d'une copie de la liste des enregistrements non acceptés.

La date limite pour produire la déclaration de revenus des particuliers ayant un revenu d'un travail indépendant ainsi que leurs époux ou conjoints de fait est minuit, mardi le 15 juin 2010.

Toutefois, veuillez prendre note que si vous avez un solde dû pour 2009, il doit être réglé au plus tard le 30 avril 2010.

REMARQUE : Si vous êtes un déclarant TED agissant à titre de transmetteur au nom d'un préparateur, veuillez lui communiquer ce message.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

CCPC Status and Non-Resident Shareholders

CCPC Status and Non-Resident Shareholders


CCPC Status and Non-Resident Shareholders

In Ekamant Canada Inc. (2009 TCC 408), the issue was whether the CRA had properly disallowed the taxpayer's claim of the small business deduction for its 2000-2003 taxation years on the basis that it was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC). Under the definition of a CCPC in subsection 125(7) of the Act, a taxpayer is not a CCPC (1) if it was controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by one or more non-resident persons, or (2) if it would, if each of its shares that is owned by a non-resident person were owned by a particular person, be controlled by the particular person.

During the relevant period, a Canadian resident (Mr. C) and three individual US residents (Mr. F and his son and daughter) each held 25 percent of the common voting shares of the taxpayer, a company incorporated under the CBCA. By irrevocable power of attorney, the son and daughter had each given Mr. F the authority to attend and vote for the grantor at any shareholders' meeting to be held in Quebec (including the right to vote for the election of directors). By a revocable proxy, Mr. F gave to Mr. C the same powers that had been given under the powers of attorney.

The taxpayer and its shareholders were parties to a shareholders' agreement that was dated October 26, 2006 ("the 2006 agreement") but had been executed after the start of the CRA audit. The 2006 agreement terminated a 1994 shareholders' agreement and stated that its purpose was to formalize in writing new administrative agreements and rules that had been put in place since the earlier shareholders' agreement. The 2006 agreement also provided that while Mr. C was a shareholder he would be a director and the president, and that he would make all decisions regarding the taxpayer's activities and the application of the 2006 agreement. Mr. C testified that he made all the decisions regarding the taxpayer. However, the TCC viewed Mr. C's testimony "with circumspection."

The appellant argued that Mr. C had legal control of the company because he had the right to acquire the shares of the other shareholders and because of subparagraph 251(5)(b)(i) of the Act; therefore, his legal control precluded control by another group. The appellant also submitted (1) that the non-resident group did not have de facto control because of Mr. C's management role and his powers under Mr. F's proxy (which, it was argued, appointed Mr. C proxy for the two children), and (2) that the effect of the proxy and power of attorney documents was similar to that of a unanimous shareholders' agreement. Therefore, on the basis of Duha Printers (Western) Ltd. ([1998] 1 SCR 795) (and paragraph 36 in particular), Mr. C had effective control of the company and the US residents did not. Accordingly, the US resident could not control the company even if paragraph (b) of the definition of CCPC applied.

The Crown argued that the US residents controlled the company under paragraph (a) of the definition of CCPC; that the proxy and power of attorney documents did not constitute a unanimous shareholders' agreement; that two distinct groups could simultaneously control a corporation; and that the US residents formed a related group and, on the basis of the FCA decision in Silicon Graphics Limited (2002 DTC 7112), were able to exercise control over the appellant.

Archambault J, relying on the decisions of the Exchequer Court in Viking Food Products Ltd. (67 DTC 5067) and the SCC in Vina-Rug (Canada) Ltd. (68 DTC 5021), rejected the appellant's submission that the deeming rules in paragraph 251(5)(b) precluded control by the legal shareholders. Archambault J agreed with the Crown and held that the three non-resident family members together controlled the appellant because they owned enough shares to exercise a majority of votes in an election of the directors. The family relationship and the powers of attorney given by the children supported the conclusion that the three US residents acted in concert.

Archambault J rejected the appellant's argument that the proxy and power of attorney documents were akin to a unanimous shareholders' agreement. The proxy of Mr. F was not irrevocable and did not restrict the powers of the directors. Further, even if the proxy and the powers of attorney were combined, Mr. C was not a party to them and could not be considered a signatory to a unanimous shareholders' agreement. Finally, Archambault J held that the 2006 agreement was not in force during the years in question.

In the end, the court held that the appellant was not a CCPC by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of CCPC. With respect to paragraph (b), since control of the board of directors was not suspended, the "particular person" referred to in that paragraph would have sufficient votes to control the appellant.

This case illustrates how CCPC status is determined when non-residents are involved. A corporation whose non-resident shareholders have voting control will be a CCPC if a unanimous shareholders' agreement ousted the powers of the board of directors and gave those powers to a Canadian resident. This finding is consistent with the decision of the SCC in Duha Printers. If, however, advisers wish to use a unanimous shareholders' agreement to cause a corporation to be a CCPC, the agreement must be properly drafted to give effective control to the person who is intended to have that control.

Philip Friedlan
Friedlan Law
Toronto and Markham, Ontario

Neglect Is Not Just Unreported Income

Neglect Is Not Just Unreported Income


Neglect Is Not Just Unreported Income

By virtue of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i), when a taxpayer has made any misrepresentation that is attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default in filing a return or supplying any information under the Act, a reassessment can be made notwithstanding the expiry of the normal reassessment period. There are therefore two prerequisites to the application of the subparagraph: (1) a misrepresentation and (2) neglect, carelessness, or wilful default. Early jurisprudence held that an incorrect statement is a misrepresentation (Foot, 66 DTC 5072 (SCC)). Neglect is established if the taxpayer has not exercised reasonable care, and the care exercised must be that of a "wise and prudent person" (Venne, 84 DTC 6247 (FCTD) and Regina Shoppers Mall, 90 DTC 6427 (FCTD)). Although section 11.3.7 of the CRA Audit Manual mentions the standard of a "wise and cautious taxpayer," the discussion in the manual suggests that it is the number of transactions for which income has been understated, or a single improperly recorded or omitted transaction involving a material amount of income, that is key, at least for CRA audit purposes. Three recent cases are summarized below.

It is not difficult to make a mistake in a return and thereby create a misrepresentation. But as explained above, neglect is required in order to extend the reassessment period. There is no neglect if the taxpayer acts as a "wise and prudent person." College Park Motor Products (2009 TCC 409) addresses this standard. The taxpayer was part of an associated group of corporations. Large corporations tax should have been paid, which would have eroded the taxpayer's right to the small business deduction. Questions on the inside jacket of the T2 return (for example, "Is the corporation subject to gross Part I.3 tax?") were incorrectly answered. The incorrect answers were held to be a misrepresentation. The court noted that while the owner of the taxpayer was not a lawyer or an accountant, if he had reviewed the draft return prepared by the accountant as carefully as a "wise and prudent taxpayer" would have done, then he would have read the questions on the inside jacket, seen the questions regarding the LCT, and asked his accountant about them. Although the taxpayer argued that the neglect that led to the misrepresentation was that of the accountant who prepared the return, the court did not accept that argument. On the basis of College Park Motor Products, the threshold for the application of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) seems low--a listed question on the return should have caused the taxpayer to ask more questions, and an incorrect answer coupled with the taxpayer's failure to inquire extended the reassessment period. The case is under appeal.

O'Dea (2009 TCC 295) involved a complicated limited partnership structure with at-risk amount and limited-recourse debt issues. A number of partners were reassessed on varying grounds, and the cases were heard together. Two of the limited partners were passive investors and had not been involved in the initial structuring details. They were reassessed to deny the deduction of partnership losses beyond the normal reassessment period on the basis of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i). They stated that they had relied on the offering memorandum, which contained a tax opinion regarding the deductibility by the partnership of certain expenses, and on statements received from the partnership regarding deductible losses. The evidence at trial did not substantiate the full amount of the partnership expenses in the year, and accordingly the amount of the partnership losses was reduced. The court held that the individuals acted in a reasonable and prudent manner in their reliance on the tax opinion and the statements received. Thus, although there may have been a misrepresentation of the amount claimed as losses, the court found that this misrepresentation was not attributable to the individuals' neglect or carelessness.

In O'Dea, the taxpayer successfully claimed reliance on his accountant; in College Park Motor Products, a similar claim was unsuccessful. The two cases can be reconciled on the basis that the individual taxpayers in O'Dea were not the equivalent of the owner-managers who failed to make inquiry of their advisers, but were arm's-length investors who relied on tax opinions and information received. In O'Dea, the court noted that investors who rely on the professional opinions given in offering documents should not be required to personally investigate the technicalities of the structure. Thus, because the documents presumably opined on the deductibility of items at the partnership level, there was no failure to exercise reasonable care when the investor relied on the statements of loss received from the partnership in filing his return. In contrast, College Park Motor Products suggests that the owner-manager of a corporation should not assume that the corporate return is correct and must review and make inquiries of the tax preparer. The owner-manager will have access to the relevant information, whereas an investor (as in O'Dea) may not.

In Dalphond (2009 FCA 121), the FCA upheld the TCC decision that the taxpayer, by claiming the capital gains exemption on a share disposition, had made a misrepresentation in his return attributable to neglect. The taxpayer was a knowledgeable investor; he was the former manager of a pension fund with significant assets. The taxpayer claimed the capital gains exemption on the sale of shares of a corporation that was a CCPC at the time of purchase. The shares were not listed on a prescribed exchange but were traded on the Canadian Dealing Network; therefore, the corporation was not a public corporation. However, it had ceased to be a CCPC at the time of sale because of a prior merger with a subsidiary of a US corporation. The taxpayer cited a newspaper article as support for claiming the capital gains exemption. The TCC (2008 TCC 427) said, "The article said that Contour Telecom was a Canadian corporation, which made the sale eligible for a capital gains exemption of up to $500,000." However, the taxpayer disposed of shares of the merged corporation, not shares of Contour Telecom. Regarding the merger, the taxpayer acknowledged that he might have received documentation, "but he did not read everything." The TCC found that the taxpayer did not make due inquiry before claiming the exemption, and this point was affirmed on appeal. The Tax Court also had some negative comments regarding the manner in which the taxpayer prepared his tax return (some forms were missing and some calculations were incomplete), all of which may have coloured the court's decision. Dalphond, like College Park Motor Products, illustrates that the taxpayer has a duty to make inquiries in order to avoid the application of subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i).

Joan E. Jung
Minden Gross LLP, Toronto

Statute-Barred Assessments

Statute-Barred Assessments


Statute-Barred Assessments

In an earlier article ("Finalizing Tax Accounts: Limits on Reassessments," Tax for the Owner-Manager, October 2004), I dealt with some of the issues relating to statute-barred assessments that can arise by virtue of New St. James (66 DTC 5241 (Ex. Ct.)). In this article, I deal with some of the circumstances in which the CRA may generally reassess beyond the "normal reassessment period" pursuant to subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i). A related question is whether such a reassessment automatically attracts the 50 percent penalty imposed under subsection 163(2).

The "normal reassessment period" is defined in subsection 152(3.1) as three years after the earlier of the date of mailing of a notice of original assessment and the date of mailing of an original notification that no tax is payable. In the case of a mutual fund trust or a corporation other than a Canadian-controlled private corporation, this period is extended to four years. Rules are provided to extend the general limitation periods to take into account the carryback of losses, gifts, and tax credits; transactions with non-arm's-length non-residents; and other special circumstances.

Subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) removes all limitation periods when a taxpayer "has made any misrepresentation that is attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default or has committed any fraud" when filing a return or providing information. Subsection 163(2) allows the minister to impose a penalty equal to 50 percent of the tax payable when a person "knowingly, or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence, has made or has participated in . . . the making of a false statement or omission in a return [or] form."

College Park Motor Products (2009 TCC 409) serves as a reminder of two key points made in earlier cases in connection with subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i):

  • The minister is not precluded from assessing outside the normal reassessment period even if the misrepresentation is due to the neglect of the taxpayer's accountant or other tax return preparer.
  • The fact that the minister might have detected the error with a careful review is irrelevant.

The court in College Park Motor Products held that the failure to correctly answer relevant questions posed in the T2 income tax return, which led to the taxpayer erroneously claiming the small business deduction, met the standard imposed by subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i). Even though the taxpayer voluntarily disclosed the error when a director learned of it, the minister reassessed both statute-barred and non-statute-barred years, the former with the court's blessing. (For more on the College Park Motor Products case, see "Neglect Is Not Just Unreported Income," which follows this article.)

The court in Nesbitt (96 DTC 6045 (FCTD)) defined "any misrepresentation" more clearly. Citing earlier jurisprudence for support, it stated that an incorrect statement constitutes a misrepresentation and that that phrase includes both innocent and fraudulent misrepresentations. Therefore, it is clear that an incorrect statement in a return or form will allow the minister to reassess outside the normal reassessment period if the incorrect statement was made as a result of neglect or the other factors set out in subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i).

In Angus (96 DTC 1823 (TCC); confirmed by the FCA at 98 DTC 6661), the court made the important statement that a misrepresentation that brings subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) into play is not necessarily a false statement. Therefore, the 50 percent penalty imposed by subsection 163(2) does not necessarily flow from a reassessment of a statute-barred year. In Snowball (97 DTC 512 (TCC)), the court stated that while the negligence of an accountant does not preclude a subparagraph 152(4)(a)(i) assessment, it may be a defence to a penalty under subsection 163(2). In Udell (70 DTC 6019 (Ex. Ct.)), a taxpayer successfully appealed a gross negligence penalty that was based on an error in his return. The taxpayer had supplied his accountant with detailed records of his income and expenses, but the accountant was grossly negligent in preparing the return. In the special circumstances of the case, the court held that the gross negligence of the accountant could not be attributed to the taxpayer. One of the reasons cited was that the taxpayer did not know of the accountant's omissions and errors.

Interestingly, the court in Angus commented that reporting the disposition of shares as a capital gain was a misrepresentation if the gain should have been reported as ordinary income; but such reporting was not, in the circumstances of that case, a false statement. This comment leaves open the possibility that in other (undefined) circumstances, merely taking the position that a gain is capital rather than ordinary income could lead to the imposition of the 50 percent subsection 163(2) penalty. One hopes that this would be the case only when the capital gain position was not really supportable--that is, the taxpayer was merely taking a shot in the hope that the CRA would not audit the transaction.

Perry Truster
Truster Zweig LLP
Richmond Hill, Ontario

Jail Time for Small Business Tax Fraud

Jail Time for Small Business Tax Fraud


Jail Time for Small Business Tax Fraud

Until recently, it has been rare to see a person jailed for tax fraud; jail time has usually been reserved for the most egregious cases. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal has served notice that significant sentences are now on the table in cases where taxpayers act fraudulently or where they intentionally attempt to evade their tax obligations.

In Canada's self-assessment tax system, taxpayers are left to voluntarily assess and pay their taxes. Taxpayers who refuse to follow the rules risk being convicted of tax fraud or a variety of other possible crimes under, for example, sections 238 and 239 of the Income Tax Act and sections 280.1, 285, 326, and 327 of the Excise Tax Act. Convictions for offences under those provisions carry the possibility of serious penalties, including heavy fines and incarceration--and often both.

Recently, some provincial courts have begun to take a much harsher approach than they have in the past. In R v. Di Giuseppe (2010 ONCA 91), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a six-year jail sentence and a $2 million fine imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on an offender who fraudulently evaded income tax and GST over a period of about two years.

Mr. D controlled all aspects of the operations of two financially successful adult entertainment clubs through three corporations that he also controlled. His daughters were exclusively responsible for processing the revenues generated by the clubs. Although the clubs generated taxable income during the applicable period, no corporate tax returns were filed and no income tax payments were made by the operating companies. Either no GST returns were made, or false GST returns were intentionally filed.

Mr. D's scheme was discovered by a chance seizure of some service income documentation (detailing the actual revenues of the clubs) during a non-tax investigation. The documentation was kept by an employee who failed to follow Mr. D's directive of destroying all records containing revenue data. Mr. D was charged with defrauding the public of more than $2.8 million in income taxes and more than $600,000 in GST by

  • deliberately failing to file corporate tax returns, or filing returns based on fraudulent income data;
  • intentionally withholding revenue data from his corporate controller, resulting in false or fraudulently understated data in the returns filed with the CRA;
  • manipulating revenue records or using other fraudulent means to direct the diversion or concealment of revenues with the purpose of underreporting the taxable income; and
  • implementing a sophisticated scheme of concealing and destroying source documents and/or supporting financial data that might reveal the actual income of the clubs.

Because the offence was a large-scale fraud involving some $3.5 million over an extensive period of time, the trial court sentenced Mr. D to six years in jail and imposed a fine of $2 million, with one year of additional incarceration in default of payment. Mr. D appealed both his conviction and the sentence, which in the past might have resulted in a reduction of the fine and the period of incarceration.

The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted all the trial judge's findings and dismissed Mr. D's appeal. The court was of the view that false GST returns were filed as a result of Mr. D's acts and that, by creating false records and destroying records, he had made it impossible for the corporations to comply with their legal duty to file income tax returns. The court commented that Mr. D's deceitful acts, which deprived the public of income taxes and GST, constituted fraud. The court also upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding it to be within the acceptable range for offences of this kind.

The Di Giuseppe decision underscores the potential liability facing taxpayers who fraudulently evade the payment of taxes. Taxpayers may want to take note of the case for very basic mathematical reasons.

For example, if a $3.5 million tax fraud results in six years' incarceration, would a $600,000 tax fraud result in one year's incarceration? Would a $300,000 tax fraud result in six months' incarceration? Would a $100,000 tax fraud result in 60 days' incarceration? Other recent cases indicate that even small-scale fraudulent activities (from $100,000 to $200,000) may result in jail time. For example, in R v. Chicoyne (2009 ONCJ 556), a fraud of $140,000 resulted in a jail sentence of 160 days.

As well, the court in Chicoyne refused to accept a plea bargain agreed to by defence counsel and the Crown; until recently, the courts were prepared to accept guilty pleas accompanied by a plea bargain for a fine only (no jail time).

The alternative for taxpayers with concerns about possible exposure to a tax fraud charge is the CRA's voluntary disclosures program, which allows taxpayers to disclose unreported income and to correct inaccurate or incomplete tax filings. When the CRA accepts the disclosure, the taxpayer is required to pay the additional taxes or charges owing, plus interest, but no penalty or prosecution is imposed. If the voluntary disclosure is made through a tax lawyer, solicitor-client privilege may afford some additional protection to the taxpayer, although the CRA makes it clear that a voluntary disclosure, to be effective, must completely disclose all items of unreported income.

Robert G. Kreklewetz and Jenny Siu
Millar Kreklewetz LLP, Toronto

Owner-Manager: Independent Contractor or Employee?

Owner-Manager: Independent Contractor or Employee?

Owner-Manager: Independent Contractor or Employee?

The factors to be applied in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor are now well established. While the factors have been enumerated in various ways by different authors and judges, the CRA has adopted a "total relationship" approach (for workers outside Quebec) based on the following criteria: (1) the intention of the parties, (2) the degree of control exerted by the payer over the worker, (3) ownership of the tools and equipment needed to do the work, (4) the worker's ability to subcontract or hire assistants, (5) the worker's financial risk and opportunity for profit, (6) investment in and management of the business by the worker, and (7) any other relevant circumstances (RC4110, "Employee or Self-Employed?"). The relative weight of each factor will depend on the circumstances of the case; however, the intention of the parties, the degree of control, and the risk of profit and loss are often heavily weighted by the courts.

Most owners who provide management services to their incorporated businesses intend to be contractors rather than employees, a characterization that is beneficial to both the owner and the business: the business does not have to make source deductions for CPP contributions in respect of a person who controls more than 40 percent of the voting shares of the company, and the owner can deduct business expenses in respect of his or her management services business. For an owner-manager, the only issue is typically whether the engagement constitutes pensionable employment.

At times, however, the courts have struggled to apply the analytical factors when a worker is also a directing mind of the company. For example, in Pro-Style Stucco (2004 TCC 32), the court noted that the traditional "control" analysis breaks down when the directing mind of the corporate payer is the worker (paragraph 21). In that case, the court resolved the difficulty by reference to the legislation and to the paid directorship of the worker: under section 2 of the CPP Act, "employment" includes the tenure of an office. "Office," in turn, is defined as "the position of an individual entitling him to a fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration . . . and also includes the position of a corporation director."

An owner-manager is often a director of his or her company, and as a result is at greater risk of finding that he or she is an employee. However, several recent cases provide guidance for owner-manager directors. In Donald L. Mancell Personal Law Corporation (2008 TCC 521, at paragraph 28), Paris J interpreted section 2 of the CPP Act as requiring that a director be entitled to a fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration in order to automatically be characterized as an employee. The issue was earlier examined at length by Rowe J in McMillan Properties (2005 TCC 654). In that case, Rowe J ultimately declined to decide whether a director who received no remuneration was an employee for the purposes of the CPP. The decision sets out most of the important case law on the embedded issues and should be reviewed for that reason. Further, the recent trend in the case law (for example, Mancell; Kewcorp Financial Inc. (2008 TCC 598); 765750 Alberta Ltd. (2007 TCC 149); and Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. (2009 TCC 144)) is to emphasize the separate legal personality of the worker and the corporation in applying the traditional factors, with the result that the control factor will favour a contractor relationship when the worker is the directing mind of the company.

There are several steps that an owner-manager directors can take to minimize the risk of an employment determination. He or she should ensure that no remuneration is paid in respect of the directorship (or that only a small portion of the remuneration is treated as pensionable employment income) and should differentiate, and document as distinct, the management services provided to the company from the duties performed by the owner in his or her capacity as a director. The yearly resolutions appointing the owner as director might state that no remuneration is to be paid in respect of the position.

The owner-manager should be particularly careful to ensure that the separate identities of the company and the owner-manager's proprietorship are obvious in practice, so as to capitalize on the emphasis in the jurisprudence on separate legal identity in applying the traditional factors. To this end, the owner should have a written management services agreement with the company that explicitly states the parties' intention that the worker is to be engaged as a contractor. The agreement should also specify that remuneration for management services depends on the profitability of the company. If the owner desires some regular income, the agreement can provide for a minimal retainer to be paid to the owner to ensure that he or she is available to provide services wherever and whenever needed. The owner should consider registering for and charging GST on management services (whether or not the effect is ultimately a wash for the company) and should ensure that the proprietorship has the accoutrements of an independent business--at a minimum, business cards, letterhead, business insurance, and office equipment or other tools provided at the worker's expense. Finally, if the owner receives professional advice in structuring his or her relationship with the company, the owner should discuss with the adviser the distinction between an employee and a contractor and should keep any evidence demonstrating that the owner understood the distinction at the time that the agreement was drawn up. As always in dealing with the CRA, the owner-manager should bear in mind that while a court may accept credible oral testimony, the CRA prefers documentary evidence.

Natasha Reid
Thorsteinssons LLP
Vancouver

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

CIBC: "The Week Ahead" - April 19th-23rd

CIBC: "The Week Ahead" - April 19th-23rd

Key Highlights of this week’s article entitled: “The ABCs of the MPR”

The upcoming announcement from the Bank of Canada regarding the Monetary Policy Report has the markets all in a buzz. Avery Shenfeld breaks down what everyone will be looking for and what the near and long term consequences will be.

Key Numbers to watch this week:

· Canada – Consumer Price Index - March (Friday, 7:00AM) – Year-on-year headline inflation should see an increase to 1.8%. New auto prices have been on an uptrend, softened only by discounts being offered by manufacturers to woo back customers.

· USDurable Goods Orders – March (Friday, 8:30AM) – US durable good orders have been on a clear upward trend since March 2009, however we may see a slowdown as orders for commercial aircraft continues its decline.

Equity Insight:

· The S&P 500 is finally trading above pre-Lehman Bros levels. As well, 80% of reporting companies have met Q1 EPS expectations. This may be more difficult in Q2 and Q3 if reduced inventory building and fiscal support slow the economy

· For the last decade, the TSX and C$ have followed a very close path, both responding to common driving factors. This is a departure from the 80s and 90s where the currency moved one way when the markets went the other.

· In the non-residential construction market, government stimulus appears to be the dominant force. Private investment has fallen more into capital equipment and machinery, and surveys show this to continue into 2010.

Currency Currents:

· Only once in the last three decades has the Bank of Canada started a tightening cycle when the output gap was still negative. The C$ may struggle a bit if the Bank takes this into consideration and hold interest rates steady through to the end of Q2.

· Revisions for the Spring Edition of the MPR are expected this upcoming week. If past revisions and the ToTEM model is any indication, future editions may see a drop off of approximately 0.3% to account for the increase in the C$

· The BoC’s Business Outlook Survey came out this past week. Of note is that respondents expect the CPI to stay within the BoC’s 1-3% target.


OneWorld Assist | Home

OneWorld Assist | Home

Variable mortgages (almost) always win

Variable mortgages (almost) always win


Variable mortgages (almost) always win

Whether They're Taking On New Mortgages Or Renewing Ones They've Held For Years, Homeowners End Up Asking Themselves The Same Question: Should They Lock In Their Mortgage Or Should They Let It Float With A Variable Rate. Here, Toronto-Based Wealth Manager Scott Tomenson Makes The Case For Variable.

Financial Post Magazine



Should you lock in your mortgage or let it float with a variable rate? Toronto-Based wealth manager Scott Tomenson makes the case for variable. Getty Images Should you lock in your mortgage or let it float with a variable rate? Toronto-Based wealth manager Scott Tomenson makes the case for variable.ARE VARIABLE MORTGAGES AS GOOD AS THEY LOOK?

Q: My fiance and I have just bought our first home and we are going in circles about what is the best mortgage for us before we close. We currently have a locked-infixed rate with a bank of 3.98%, which we prefer to the uncertainty of taking a variable mortgage. But would we be better off with a variable-rate mortgage, especially if we saved money during periods when rate are low and use that to make payments on principal? Will that offset costs when our payments are higher than our current fixed rate?

Getting Dizzy, Ontario

A: Historically, as far as interest rates are concerned, it is better to float your mortgage interest rate (i. e., choose a variable rate mortgage). This is a result of the "yield curve." The "normal" yield curve is positively sloped, with interest rates lower for short-term maturities (one to two years) and higher for longer-term maturities (five to 30 years). When the economy strengthens, the Bank of Canada will raise short-term interest rates (they only have control over short-term rates) and the base for variable-rate mortgages (usually the prime rate) is moved higher. This action signals a period of "tightening" of monetary policy to cool the economy and reduces inflationary pressures.

The vehicles that determine longer-term interest rates -- bonds -- tend to move according to inflationary expectations: If bond investors anticipate inflation (because of economic growth), they demand higher returns (interest rates) as protection from inflation. When the Bank of Canada is perceived as "fighting" inflation by raising shortterm interest rates, long-term rates have a tendency, in most cases, to remain stable or improve, because long-term bond investors are content that inflation will not grow.

In essence, while short-term interest rates may go up, they do so only until the Bank of Canada has slowed the economy enough to curb anticipated inflation. Then, as economic growth slows, the bank starts to lower them. The yield curve will flatten (with higher short-term interest rates) for a time, but when the economy slows, short-term rates will go back down and the yield curve returns to its "normal" positive slope.

Over this time, variable-rate mortgages will move up to being approximately equal to locked-in five-or 10-year rates, but that's followed by a period when they return to lower levels. More often than not, over this time, it is less costly to have held the variable rate debt. Exceptions to this situation would be times of hyper-inflation (like in the 1980s) when short-term interest rates went to extreme levels.

If you had a variable mortgage at prime minus over the past few years, as I did, it's been a great ride. I kept my payments level and the low interest rates allowed to me to pay off massive amounts of principal. True, the economy is strengthening and shortterm rates will go up a bit over the next couple of years, but I don't think it will be dramatic. The case for variable-rate mortgages remains strong.

Iceland Volcano Eruption Update - dvk.b2b2c@gmail.com - Gmail

Iceland Volcano Eruption Update

Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Iceland has created an ash cloud over much of Europe which has led to the biggest travel disruption since 9/11, with flight cancellations quickly spreading across the globe from Australia and Asia to the Americas.

The European Union has not yet determined how long flight restrictions will last as they continue to send test planes at various altitudes to assess whether or not it is safe to fly. The ash, composed of superfine particulate matter, can seize up jet engines, making air travel impossible anywhere in the ash plume.

In many cases clients who have purchased Trip Cancellation & Interruption policies will be covered. Clients are encouraged to submit their claim with the necessary information so that their claim can be properly adjudicated.

La Floride n'a jamais été si abordable | Stéphanie Grammond | Immobilier

La Floride n'a jamais été si abordable | Stéphanie Grammond | Immobilier

Une propriété à vendre à Miami.... (Photo Getty images)

Agrandir

Photo Getty images

Une propriété à vendre à Miami.

(Montréal) C'est le monde à l'envers: au Québec, l'immobilier sent la surchauffe, tandis qu'en Floride, la chute du prix des maisons donne froid dans le dos.

Le climat n'a jamais été aussi favorable pour les snowbirds qui rêvent d'acheter une maison en Floride. Le dollar est revenu à la parité. Les taux d'intérêt restent à un plancher historique. Et le prix des maisons en Floride a fondu de moitié depuis quatre ans.

La Floride a été l'un des États les plus malmenés par la crise de l'immobilier. Le prix d'une maison unifamiliale a fondu à 131 300$ US, en février dernier, selon la Florida Association of Realtors. Il s'agit d'une baisse de 46% par rapport au sommet de 244 200$ US établi en 2006 au faîte de la bulle.

«On le mesure très bien quand on fait évaluer des propriétés», confie Rosaline Cyr, présidente de NatBank, la filiale de la Banque Nationale en Floride, en entrevue téléphonique avec La Presse. «La semaine dernière, on a fait évaluer une très belle maison qui avait subi une dévaluation de 48%», dit-elle.

Dans certaines régions, la dégringolade a été encore plus douloureuse. Sur la côte Ouest, les prix se sont écrasés de près de 70% à Fort Myers-Cape Coral. Les maisons unifamiliales n'y valent plus que 88 000$ US.

Chute de plus de 50%

Et la situation est encore pire du côté des copropriétés. Pour l'ensemble de la Floride, le prix médian d'un condo a flanché de 58% depuis quatre ans, passant de 218 700$ US en février 2006 à 92 200$ US en février dernier.

Le prix est encore plus faible dans certaines régions comme Fort Lauderdale (71 500$ US), Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie (74 000$ US) ou Orlando (50 100$ US).

«Je vois des beaux condos en bas de 100 000$ US. Deux chambres. Pas de rénovations à faire. À 125 000$, on peut décrocher quelque chose d'extraordinaire... peut-être pas sur l'eau, mais certainement sur un terrain de golf», confirme Mme Cyr.

Les acheteurs qui veulent s'établir directement au bord de la mer ou du canal intercostal, trouveront un condo très convenable entre 250 000$ US et 300 000$ US. En 2005, il fallait payer 600 000$ US!

Mais les acheteurs ne doivent pas se mettre la tête dans le sable. Ces prix de vente dégonflés cachent des «frais de condo» (charges de copropriété) très salés. «Il ne faut pas oublier que les associations de propriétaires ne sont pas en bonne santé financière», dit Mme Cyr.

Certains propriétaires ont été saisis. D'autres ont perdu leur emploi. Les propriétaires qui restent sont forcés de mettre les bouchées doubles pour renflouer les coffres de l'association.

Ainsi, il n'est pas inhabituel de payer 25 000$ US de frais par année pour un condo haut de gamme d'environ 600 000$ US... qui valait bien au-delà d'un million, il y a quatre ans.

Minuit moins une

L'immobilier est retombé huit ans en arrière, en Floride. Pour trouver des prix aussi bas qu'aujourd'hui, il faut remonter jusqu'en 2002, alors que le prix médian d'une maison unifamiliale s'établissait à 131 800$ US.

Mais à l'époque, le dollar canadien était à un creux historique de 62 cents US. Pour un acheteur canadien, cela gonflait le prix d'une maison en Floride à 211 500$, comme le démontre notre tableau.

Pour un Canadien, le prix d'une maison en Floride est revenu au même point qu'il y a 13 ans, soit en 1997, en considérant le taux de change.

Mais à cette époque, leurs revenus étaient inférieurs et les taux d'intérêt étaient plus élevés. Si l'on tient compte de ces deux facteurs, les maisons en Floride n'ont probablement jamais été aussi abordables pour les acheteurs canadiens.

«Aux États-Unis, l'indice d'accessibilité est au septième ciel! Les maisons n'ont jamais été si peu chères», indique Yanick Desnoyers, économiste en chef adjoint à la Financière Banque Nationale.

À son avis, c'est le temps d'acheter en Floride. «Il n'y a pas vraiment de risque que le prix des maisons chute encore plus», assure-t-il. Les mises en chantier ont considérablement baissé, ce qui contribue à rétablir l'équilibre entre l'offre et la demande. De plus, le marché de l'emploi se redresse aux États-Unis, ce qui devrait limiter les reprises de finance (foreclosure).

«Le marché est au pire. Présentement, on fait du surplace. Tout indique que ça va être terminé en 2010, et que ça va repartir en 2011. Mais la reprise va être très longue», prévoit Mme Cyr.

Cependant, il ne faut pas attendre en 2011: «Si l'on veut profiter de la faiblesse des taux d'intérêt, il est minuit moins une», dit M. Desnoyers. À son avis, la Banque du Canada va relever bientôt son taux directeur. Les taux qui sont à un plancher de 0,25%, vont remonter graduellement à 2% d'ici 12 mois. Aux États-Unis, la Réserve fédérale haussera aussi les taux, mais avec un léger décalage.

Les prix selon la région de Floride

BRADENTON SARASOTA

Prix médian 2010 - 154 500$ US

Prix médian2006 - 342 300$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -55%

FORT MYERS CAPE CORAL

Prix médian 2010 - 88 000$ US

Prix médian2006 - 279 900$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -69%

ORLANDO

Prix médian 2010 - 130 800$ US

Prix médian2006 - 257 200$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -49%

FORT PIERCE PORT ST. LUCIE

Prix médian 2010 - 96 800$ US

Prix médian2006 - 248 400$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -61%

WEST PALM BEACH BOCA RATON

Prix médian 2010 - 219 100$ US

Prix médian2006 - 391 000$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -44%

FORT LAUDERDALE

Prix médian 2010 - 186 700$ US

Prix médian2006 - 360 800$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -48%

MIAMI

Prix médian 2010 - 191 100$ US

Prix médian2006 - 368 700$ US

Variation sur quatre ans -48%

Source: Florida Association of Realtors

Fraude immobilière: mieux vaut prévenir | Malcolm Morrison | Immobilier

Fraude immobilière: mieux vaut prévenir | Malcolm Morrison | Immobilier

La fraude immobilière est un phénomène rare mais les experts préviennent... (Photo: Archives La Presse)

Agrandir

Photo: Archives La Presse

  • Malcolm Morrison

La fraude immobilière est un phénomène rare mais les experts préviennent que ce n'est pas une raison pour se croire à l'abri. Étant donné les problèmes qu'elle peut causer aux propriétaires qui ne s'en méfient pas, il est préférable de savoir qu'elle existe et qu'elle est dangereuse.

«Je compare la fraude à la loterie», affirme Ray Leclair de la firme d'assurance en droit de la propriété TitlePlus.

«Il y a des millions de transactions immobilières qui s'effectuent chaque année en Ontario seulement. Un très petit nombre d'entre elles sont frauduleuses. Alors, pour le public, les chances de gagner ou de perdre à la loterie de la fraude sont très faibles.»

Mais ce n'est pas une expérience qu'on souhaite vivre, soutient-il, même si les gouvernements ont mis en place certaines mesures pour aider les gens à retrouver le titre de propriété qui a été volé.

«Au bout du compte, même si vous réussissez à regagner votre titre, il reste la question des frais juridiques.»

Il existe deux types de fraude immobilière: celle du prêt hypothécaire et celle du titre de propriété.

Le prêt hypothécaire frauduleux est plus problématique pour les prêteurs. Dans ce cas, le fraudeur laisse le titre de propriété au nom du vrai propriétaire mais contracte une hypothèque sans que ce dernier ne soit au courant. Il peut aussi s'agir d'une personne qui souhaite acquérir une propriété et qui falsifie des renseignements pour obtenir un prêt.

«Ce n'est qu'une question de prêt», indique Laura Parsons, directrice des ventes spécialisées pour la Banque de Montréal, à Calgary.

«Il y a des gens qui ne pourraient pas normalement obtenir un prêt mais parce qu'ils fraudent et qu'ils donnent des renseignements incomplets ou qu'ils ne disent pas tout à leur prêteur, ils finissent par être approuvés.»

Ce que le propriétaire moyen doit craindre, c'est la fraude du titre de propriété. Elle se produit lorsqu'un fraudeur change le nom du titre afin de vendre ou de réhypothéquer la propriété.

Selon le ministère des Services aux consommateurs de l'Ontario, ce type de fraude implique des fraudeurs qui utilisent de faux documents pour transférer à leur nom un titre de propriété enregistré afin d'obtenir un prêt hypothécaire et ensuite disparaître avec l'argent.

Mme Parsons affirme qu'il s'agit d'une forme de vol d'identité.

«Ils connaissent tous les renseignements sur une personne, se rendent au registre foncier, consultent un titre et découvrent que la propriété est libre de toute charge», raconte-t-elle.

«Comme ils ont pratiquement le champ libre pour vendre la propriété, ils changent le nom du titre.»

Si le fraudeur a suffisamment de renseignements entre les mains, il peut changer le titre de propriété de la résidence pour le mettre à son nom. Il a ensuite la possibilité de la vendre ou d'aller à la banque afin d'obtenir une marge de crédit ou un prêt hypothécaire.

Peut-on croire qu'on peut le savoir immédiatement si on a été arnaqué ? Les fraudeurs ne sont pas complètement stupides et ils ont des trucs pour retarder la découverte du pot aux roses.

«Ils ont changé le titre ou contracté une hypothèque qu'ils vont payer pendant deux ou trois mois», révèle M. Leclair.

Pendant ce temps, le fraudé reçoit ses comptes et tout semble normal.

«Entre-temps, votre hypothèque a disparu et a été remplacée par une nouvelle hypothèque qui sera payée pendant deux ou trois mois. Deux ou trois mois plus tard, ils arrêtent les paiements. Il y a deux ou trois mois d'attente avant que la banque ne réagisse. Alors six mois ou neuf mois plus tard, la banque vous appelle pour vous menacer de vendre votre propriété ou quelqu'un sonne à votre porte pour vous dire que vous êtes à la rue.»

M. Leclair raconte aussi le cas d'un homme de Vancouver victime d'une fraude immobilière qui a commencé à se poser des questions lorsqu'il a arrêté de recevoir ses comptes d'impôts fonciers. Il a alors appelé la ville pour se faire répondre qu'il avait vendu sa propriété.

Même si le gouvernement a instauré des mesures pour aider les personnes flouées, M. Leclair soutient que c'est aux propriétaires de demeurer vigilants. Mme Parsons et lui insistent sur l'importance de protéger les renseignements personnels afin d'éviter de devenir une cible pour les fraudeurs.

On peut aussi assurer son titre de propriété. En plus de protéger le propriétaire légitime maintenant et dans le futur, ce type d'assurance couvre toute fraude qui aurait pu être commise avant l'achat d'une maison. Pour un montant variant entre 200 et 300 dollars, dépendamment de la valeur de la propriété, on est protégé tant et aussi longtemps qu'on demeure propriétaire de la résidence.

Revente immobilière: nouveau record pour Montréal | Maxime Bergeron | Immobilier

Revente immobilière: nouveau record pour Montréal | Maxime Bergeron | Immobilier


Les jeunes, pressés d'acheter une propriété avant la remontée des taux... (Photo: Patrick Sanfaçon, Archives La Presse)

Agrandir

Photo: Patrick Sanfaçon, Archives La Presse

(Montréal) Les jeunes, pressés d'acheter une propriété avant la remontée des taux hypothécaires, ont propulsé le marché montréalais à un sommet inégalé le mois dernier.

Le nombre total de transactions a dépassé de 12?% le précédent record établi en mars 2007, indiquent les données publiées hier par la Chambre immobilière du Grand Montréal (CIGM). Et le volume des ventes a explosé de 53?% sur un an pour atteindre 1,68 milliard de dollars. Du jamais vu.

Michel Beauséjour, chef de la direction de la CIGM, attribue une bonne partie de cette activité aux premiers acheteurs. «?Les conditions économiques favorables et les faibles taux d'intérêt ont certainement encouragé les locataires à devenir propriétaires, a-t-il déclaré. Il est aussi possible que certains consommateurs aient devancé leur achat, prévoyant une éventuelle hausse des taux hypothécaires cet été.?»

Les ventes sont en hausse de 38?% par rapport à mars 2009 - mois marqué par la récession - et de 21?% par rapport à mars 2008. Toutes les catégories d'habitations ont enregistré des augmentations majeures de prix.

Dans la région métropolitaine, les «?plex?» de deux à cinq logements ont vu leur prix médian grimper à 375 000?$ en mars, en hausse de 10?%. Les maisons unifamiliales se sont vendues 245 000?$ (+9?%) et les appartements en copropriété, 202 500?$ (+10?%).

Les hausses sont encore plus salées dans l'île de Montréal. Le prix médian des «?plex?» a bondi à 395 000?$ (+13?%), celui des condos, à 237 500?$ (+12?%) et celui des unifamiliales, à 320 000?$ (+11?%). Le phénomène de la surenchère est en pleine explosion et a doublé en deux ans dans les quartiers centraux, comme le révélait récemment La Presse Affaires.

La CIGM explique la progression des prix par une baisse marquée de l'offre de propriétés à vendre, qui crée un phénomène de rareté. Le nombre d'inscriptions en vigueur a baissé de 20?% le mois dernier.

Surchauffe??

À Montréal comme dans plusieurs autres grandes villes, le premier trimestre de 2010 a été marqué par une progression continue des prix. Ils ont grimpé de plus de 20?% dans certaines catégories d'habitation à Toronto et Vancouver.

Phil Soper, président de Services immobiliers Royal Lepage, a toutefois cité le marché montréalais comme un «?exemple?» de stabilité, dans une étude publiée jeudi. La hausse de prix d'un plain pied a été de 7,2?% pendant les trois premiers mois de l'année, comparativement à 21,8?% à Vancouver, a illustré l'agence.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Canadian Mortgage Broker News - AIG United Guaranty comes under Canadian ownership, gets new name

Canadian Mortgage Broker News - AIG United Guaranty comes under Canadian ownership, gets new name

AIG United Guaranty comes under Canadian ownership, gets new name

| Monday, 19 April 2010


The name AIG United Guaranty is no longer after the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, along with other investors, successfully completed the acquisition of the private mortgage insurer and renamed it Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance Company.

The transaction - for which details were not disclosed - means the company has no more ties to the U.S. or its former parent company, American International Group (AIG). In addition to the name, the new owners are rebranding the company as the only 100 per cent Canadian-owned private mortgage insurer.

"Today's launch of Canada Guaranty benefits lenders, mortgage professionals and consumers by fostering a competitive market dynamic and creating new choice in mortgage default insurance providers," said Andrew Charles, the insurer's president and CEO, who remained on board from AIG United Guaranty.

While the private investment arm of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan led the acquisition process, which was first announced in January, a private holding company called National Mortgage Guaranty Holdings led by First National president Stephen Smith also had significant involvement.

Canada Guaranty, which is headquartered in Toronto, has identified its key differentiators in the marketplace as financial strength, including the backing of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, and service excellence.

It added mortgage insurance policies that were underwritten prior to today will receive mortgage insurance coverage through Canada Guaranty.

Mortgage rate as of 19/04/2010

Our commitment:
* Negociate on your behalf the best interest rates and loan conditions
* Provide you with a pre-approval service
* Explain to you the range of government programs (Home Buyers Plan, ...)
* Protect your mortgage rate for up to 120 days
* Transfer your mortgage free of charge*


Mortgage product Posted rate Our rate
     
5 years Variable 3.75 %1.75 %
5 years Var Promo PAP2.25 %1.75 %
1 year 4.35 %2.39 %
1 year open6.55 %6.45 %
2 years4.30 %3.20 %
3 years4.85 %3.29 %
4 years5.59 %4.19 %
5 years6.10 %4.44 %
6 years6.35 %4.80 %
7 years6.85 %5.00 %
9 years5.73 %5.43 %
10 years 7.20 %5.34 %
15 years9.55 %9.25 %
18 years9.55 %9.25 %
25 years9.65 %9.35 %



*Some conditions apply, subject to change without prior notice.

Posted by DataTracker Powered by CoolRent

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Mortgage rate as of 17/04/2010

Our commitment:
* Negociate on your behalf the best interest rates and loan conditions
* Provide you with a pre-approval service
* Explain to you the range of government programs (Home Buyers Plan, ...)
* Protect your mortgage rate for up to 120 days
* Transfer your mortgage free of charge*


Mortgage product Posted rate Our rate
     
5 years Variable 3.75 %1.75 %
5 years Var Promo PAP2.25 %1.75 %
1 year 4.35 %2.39 %
1 year open6.55 %6.45 %
2 years4.30 %3.20 %
3 years4.85 %3.29 %
4 years5.59 %4.19 %
5 years6.10 %4.39 %
6 years6.35 %4.80 %
7 years6.85 %5.00 %
9 years5.73 %5.43 %
10 years 7.20 %5.34 %
15 years9.55 %9.25 %
18 years9.55 %9.25 %
25 years9.65 %9.35 %



*Some conditions apply, subject to change without prior notice.

Posted by DataTracker Powered by CoolRent

Friday, April 16, 2010

Nouvelle exigence d’entrée à Cuba : mise à jour New entry requirement to Cuba: update - dvk.b2b2c@gmail.com - Gmail

Nouvelle exigence d’entrée à Cuba : mise à jour New entry requirement to Cuba:

New entry requirement to Cuba: update


Montréal, April 16, 2010 — As you are well aware of, as of May 1, 2010, the Cuban government will request from all foreign travellers entering Cuba a proof of insurance covering medical care.

You may find the latest communication related to this new requirement on website of the Cuba Tourist Board in Canada: www.gocuba.ca

Travel insurance policies will have to be subscribed before the departure in the country of residence. A traveller arriving in Cuba without any protection will have to subscribe a health insurance plan with a Cuban insurance company at the point of entry.

CanAssistance, Blue Cross assistance subsidiary, is duly recognized by the Cuban government and works in collaboration with Asistur SA, the official assistance society of Cuba, to provide assistance to travellers who need medical care.

Upon arrival at the customs, tourists will have to provide proof of insurance by presenting:
  • their travel insurance policy,
  • their insurance confirmation with their name and address, contract number, the type of coverage and travelling dates.

In order to avoid any problem with the Cuban authorities, travellers should keep their insurance documents with them along with all other mandatory travel documents.

Mortgage rate as of 16/04/2010

Our commitment:
* Negociate on your behalf the best interest rates and loan conditions
* Provide you with a pre-approval service
* Explain to you the range of government programs (Home Buyers Plan, ...)
* Protect your mortgage rate for up to 120 days
* Transfer your mortgage free of charge*


Mortgage product Posted rate Our rate
     
5 years Variable 3.75 %1.75 %
5 years Var Promo PAP2.25 %1.75 %
1 year 4.35 %2.39 %
1 year open6.55 %6.45 %
2 years4.30 %2.95 %
3 years4.85 %3.29 %
4 years5.59 %4.09 %
5 years6.10 %4.39 %
6 years6.35 %4.80 %
7 years6.85 %5.00 %
9 years5.73 %5.43 %
10 years 7.20 %5.34 %
15 years9.55 %9.25 %
18 years9.55 %9.25 %
25 years9.65 %9.35 %



*Some conditions apply, subject to change without prior notice.

Posted by DataTracker Powered by CoolRent